twitter lawsuit

Document Sample
twitter lawsuit Powered By Docstoc
					                                              Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. (SBN: 225557)
                                          2   Robert L. Hyde, Esq. (SBN: 227183)
                                              Hyde & Swigart
                                          4   411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301
                                              San Diego, CA 92108-3551
                                              Telephone: (619) 233-7770
                                          6   Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
                                              Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. (SBN: 249203)
                                              S. Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq. (SBN: 252835)
                                         10   Kazerouni Law Group, APC
                                              2700 North Main Street, Ste. 1050
                                              Santa Ana, CA 92866
                                         12   Telephone: (800) 400-6808

                                              Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
                 Riverside, California

                                                                    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                                                                   SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
                                                 Drew Moss, and Sahar                                          '11CV0906 LAB
                                                                                                     Case No.: _____________JMA
                                                 Maleksaeedi, Individually and on
                                         19      Behalf of All Others Similarly                      CLASS ACTION
                                                                                                     Complaint for Damages and
                                         21                             Plaintiffss,                 Injunctive Relief Pursuant To The
                                                 v.                                                  Telephone Consumer Protection
                                                                                                     Act, 47 U.S.C § 227 et seq.
                                         23      Twitter, Inc.,
                                                                        Defendant.                   Jury Trial Demanded

                                              Complaint for Damages                            - 1 of 8 -
                                          1                                             INTRODUCTION
                                          2   1.     Drew Moss and Sahar Maleksaeedi (“Plaintiffs”) bring this Class Action
                                          3          Complaint for damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
                                          4          equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal actions of Twitter, Inc.
                                          5          (“Defendant”), in negligently, and/or willfully contacting Plaintiffs on
                                          6          Plaintiffs’ cellular telephones, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
                                          7          Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq., (“TCPA”), thereby invading
                                          8          Plaintiffs’ privacy. Plaintiffs allege as follows upon personal knowledge as to
                                          9          their own acts and experiences, and, as to all other matters, upon information
                                         10          and belief, including investigation conducted by their attorneys.
                                         11                                      JURISDICTION AND VENUE
                                         12   2.     Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) because Plaintiffs seek up
                 Riverside, California

                                         13          to $1,500 in damages for each call in violation of the TCPA, which, when
                                         14          aggregated among a proposed class number in the tens of thousands, exceeds
                                         15          the $5,000,000 threshold for federal court jurisdiction.                  Further, Plaintiffs
                                         16          allege a national class, which will result in at least one class member
                                         17          belonging to a different state than that of Defendant, providing jurisdiction
                                         18          under 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2)(A). Therefore, both elements of diversity
                                         19          jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) are
                                         20          present, and this Court has jurisdiction.
                                         21   3.     Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
                                         22          California pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and 1441(a) because the events
                                         23          giving rise to Plaintiffs’ causes of action against Defendant occurred within
                                         24          the State of California and the County of San Diego, within this judicial
                                         25          district.

                                              Complaint for Damages                            - 2 of 8 -
                                          1                                                 PARTIES
                                          2   4.     Plaintiffs are, and at all times mentioned herein were, citizens and residents of
                                          3          the State of California. Plaintiffs are, and at all times mentioned herein were,
                                          4          “persons” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153 (10).
                                          5   5.     Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendant is, and
                                          6          at all times mentioned herein was, a corporation whose primary corporate
                                          7          address is in San Francisco, California. Defendant, is a citizen of this state.
                                          8          Defendant is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a corporation and a
                                          9          “person,” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153 (10). Defendant provides a social
                                         10          networking service through the use of text messages with more than 100
                                         11          million active users.          Plaintiffs allege that at all times relevant herein
                                         12          Defendant conducted business in the State of California and in the County of
                 Riverside, California

                                         13          San Diego, and within this judicial district.
                                         14                                       FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
                                         15   6.     At all times relevant, Plaintiffs were a citizens of the State of California.
                                         16          Plaintiffs are, and at all times mentioned herein were, “persons” as defined by
                                         17          47 U.S.C. § 153 (10).
                                         18   7.     Defendant is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a corporation and a
                                         19          “person,” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153 (10).
                                         20   8.     At all times relevant Defendant conducted business in the State of California
                                         21          and in the County of San Diego, within this judicial district.
                                         22   9.     Plaintiffs have been members of Twitter for a considerable period of time.
                                         23   10.    Plaintiffs activated one or more options in their Twitter accounts, online, to
                                         24          receive notifications concerning their account via text messages on April 6,
                                         25          2011.
                                         26   11.    Plaintiffs continued to receive text message notifications from Defendant
                                         27          thereafter. At some point Plaintiffs decided that they no longer wanted to
                                         28          receive text message notifications on their cellular telephone from Defendant.

                                              Complaint for Damages                            - 3 of 8 -
                                          1   12.    Plaintiffs then responded to Defendant’s last text message notification by
                                          2          replying “stop,” as instructed by Twitter.
                                          3   13.    At this point, Plaintiffs withdrew any express or implied consent to receive
                                          4          text message notification to their cellular telephone that they may have
                                          5          previous given Twitter.
                                          6   14.    In response to receiving this revocation of consent, Defendant then
                                          7          immediately sent another, unsolicited, confirmatory text message to
                                          8          Plaintiffs’ cellular telephones.
                                          9   15.    This unsolicited text message placed to Plaintiffs’ cellular telephone was
                                         10          placed via an “automatic telephone dialing system,” (“ATDS”) as defined by
                                         11          47 U.S.C. § 227 (a)(1) as prohibited by 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A).
                                         12   16.    The telephone number that the defendant, or its agents, called was assigned to
                 Riverside, California

                                         13          a cellular telephone service for which Plaintiffs incured a charge for incoming
                                         14          calls pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1).
                                         15   17.    These telephone calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes
                                         16          as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A)(i).
                                         17   18.    Plaintiffs did not provide Defendant or its agents prior express consent to
                                         18          receive unsolicited text messages, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227 (b)(1)(A).
                                         19   19.    These telephone calls by Defendant or its agents violated 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)
                                         20          (1).
                                         21                                   CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
                                         22   20.    Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of and all
                                         23          others similarly situated (“the Class”).
                                         24   21.    Plaintiffs represent, and are members of the Class, consisting of all persons
                                         25          within the United States who received any unsolicited confirmatory text
                                         26          messages and/or any other unsolicited text messages from Defendant after
                                         27          any class member sent a reply text message, “stop,” to Defendant in response
                                         28          to a text message sent by Defendant, which text message was not made for

                                              Complaint for Damages                            - 4 of 8 -
                                          1          emergency purposes or with the recipient’s prior express consent, within the
                                          2          four years prior to the filing of this Complaint.
                                          3   22.    Defendant and its employees or agents are excluded from the Class. Plaintiffs
                                          4          do not know the number of members in the Class, but believe the Class
                                          5          members number in the hundreds of thousands, if not more. Thus, this matter
                                          6          should be certified as a Class action to assist in the expeditious litigation of
                                          7          this matter.
                                          8   23.    Plaintiffs and members of the Class were harmed by the acts of Defendant in
                                          9          at least the following ways: Defendant, either directly or through its agents,
                                         10          illegally contacted Plaintiffs and the Class members via their cellular
                                         11          telephones by using an unsolicited and/or confirmatory text message, thereby
                                         12          causing Plaintiffs and the Class members to incur certain cellular telephone
                 Riverside, California

                                         13          charges or reduce cellular telephone time for which Plaintiffs and the Class
                                         14          members previously paid, and invading the privacy of said Plaintiffs and the
                                         15          Class members. Plaintiffs and the Class members were damaged thereby.
                                         16   24.    This suit seeks only damages and injunctive relief for recovery of economic
                                         17          injury on behalf of the Class and it expressly is not intended to request any
                                         18          recovery for personal injury and claims related thereto. Plaintiffs reserve the
                                         19          right to expand the Class definition to seek recovery on behalf of additional
                                         20          persons as warranted as facts are learned in further investigation and
                                         21          discovery.
                                         22   25.    The joinder of the Class members is impractical and the disposition of their
                                         23          claims in the Class action will provide substantial benefits both to the parties
                                         24          and to the court. The Class can be identified through Defendant’s records or
                                         25          Defendant’s agents’ records.
                                         26   26.    There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact
                                         27          involved affecting the parties to be represented. The questions of law and fact

                                              Complaint for Damages                            - 5 of 8 -
                                          1          to the Class predominate over questions which may affect individual Class
                                          2          members, including the following:
                                          3           a)     Whether, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint,
                                          4                  Defendant placed any confirmatory text messages (other than a text
                                          5                  message made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express
                                          6                  consent of the called party) to a Class member using any automatic
                                          7                  telephone dialing and/or texting system to any telephone number
                                          8                  assigned to a cellular telephone service;
                                          9           b)     Whether Plaintiffs and the Class members were damaged thereby, and
                                         10                  the extent of damages for such violation; and
                                         11           c)     Whether Defendant should be enjoined from engaging in such conduct
                                         12                  in the future.
                 Riverside, California

                                         13   28.    As a person that received at least one confirmatory text message without
                                         14          Plaintiffs’ prior express consent, Plaintiffs are asserting claims that are typical
                                         15          of the Class. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the
                                         16          interests of the Class in that Plaintiffs have no interests antagonistic to any
                                         17          member of the Class.
                                         18   29.    Plaintiffs and the members of the Class have all suffered irreparable harm as a
                                         19          result of the Defendant’s unlawful and wrongful conduct.                      Absent a class
                                         20          action, the Class will continue to face the potential for irreparable harm. In
                                         21          addition, these violations of law will be allowed to proceed without remedy
                                         22          and Defendant will likely continue such illegal conduct. Because of the size
                                         23          of the individual Class member’s claims, few, if any, Class members could
                                         24          afford to seek legal redress for the wrongs complained of herein.
                                         25   30.    Plaintiffs have retained counsel experienced in handling class action claims
                                         26          and claims involving violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
                                         27   31.    A class action is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of
                                         28          this controversy. Class-wide damages are essential to induce Defendant to

                                              Complaint for Damages                            - 6 of 8 -
                                          1          comply with federal and California law. The interest of Class members in
                                          2          individually controlling the prosecution of separate claims against Defendant
                                          3          is small because the maximum statutory damages in an individual action for
                                          4          violation of privacy are minimal. Management of these claims is likely to
                                          5          present significantly fewer difficulties than those presented in many class
                                          6          claims.
                                          7   32.    Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby
                                          8          making appropriate final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief
                                          9          with respect to the Class as a whole.
                                         10                                      FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
                                         11     NEGLIGENT VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT
                                         12                                       47 U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ.
                 Riverside, California

                                         13   33.    Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the above paragraphs of this
                                         14          Complaint as though fully stated herein.
                                         15   34.    The foregoing acts and omissions of Defendant constitute numerous and
                                         16          multiple negligent violations of the TCPA, including but not limited to each
                                         17          and every one of the above-cited provisions of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq.
                                         18   35.    As a result of Defendant’s negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seq,
                                         19          Plaintiffs and The Class are entitled to an award of $500.00 in statutory
                                         20          damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).
                                         21   36.    Plaintiffs and the The Class are also entitled to and seek injunctive relief
                                         22          prohibiting such conduct in the future.
                                         23                                         PRAYER FOR RELIEF
                                         24   Wherefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court grant Plaintiffs and The Class
                                         25   members the following relief against Defendant:

                                              Complaint for Damages                            - 7 of 8 -
                                          1                  FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT VIOLATION OF
                                          2                                THE TCPA, 47 U.S.C. § 227 ET SEQ.

                                          3   37.    As a result of Defendant’s negligent violations of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1),
                                          4          Plaintiffs seek for themselves and each Class member $500.00 in statutory
                                          5          damages, for each and every violation, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).
                                          6   38.    Pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(A), injunctive relief prohibiting such
                                          7          conduct in the future.
                                          8   39.    Any other relief the Court may deem just and proper.
                                          9                                             TRIAL BY JURY
                                         10   40.    Pursuant to the seventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States of
                                         11          America, Plaintiffs are entitled to, and demand, a trial by jury.
                 Riverside, California

                                              Date: April 27, 2011                                    HYDE & SWIGART
                                                                                                By: _/s Joshua B. Swigart____
                                                                                                    Joshua B. Swigart
                                         16                                                         Attorneys for Plaintiffs

                                              Complaint for Damages                            - 8 of 8 -
                               LAB JMA

X            ---yeb

-------yeb                               ---yeb

                               28:1331 yeb

Shared By: